i present to you the most contradictory sentence of all time

A Loving Family (Part One)

- a serial dadvid + Mafia Family Au-

The name stemmed from the Vagabond.

Mad Prince.

It was almost laughable really, to compare the two.

The Vagabond demanded respect, whether he was regular Ryan, or the masked murderer that Los Santos had simultaneously feared and adored.

Though those words seem contradictory, the Fakes brought as much peace as they did chaos. With every gang they tore down the safer the dark alleys and mostly abandoned neighborhoods got, but every battle leading up to the final showdown was nothing but mayhem.

The casualties would grow to triple digits and heists performed by the Fake AH Crew would fill the city with rage.

But by the time Geoff and his kids cut off the head of the beast, the city would rejoice as their own children wouldn’t need to fear walking home from school.

And then there was David, submissive in every sense, loved by most but disrespected by all. Well, all who didn’t know about his reputation he held amongst the biggest crime bosses in America.

David always allowed Max and the other campers to walk all over him. Even at work he was looked down upon, trodden on by his coworkers and given side jobs he wasn’t payed for.

They saw him as a lackey, a nobody. A naive kid with his head so far in the clouds that anyone could get the drop on him.

But Max always knew the switch, when the light clicked and cobwebbed cogs began to turn. Max knew better than to test him, because he was no longer David much like The Vagabond wasn’t Ryan. That’s when David became somebody.

“Both strong and weak,” Max thought as he watched the two talk. Argue really, by the way David’s hands were flailing. But it was hard to make out through the tinted wind shield.

Ryan glanced at him and offered Max the closest thing to a smile when Max stepped into the car, which did nothing but unsettle Max since Uncle Ryan never bothered with formalities.
The Vagabond dabbled in them from time to time depending on the subject he was presented.

Max narrowed his eyes and stared hard at the blond haired man.

They were close, closer than Ryan was with anybody else, but Max knew that he couldn’t trust The Vagabond.

Ryan, yes. Ryan knew all of Max’s secretes, of the past David had only known about until the Fake’s showed up.

David glanced at Max through the rear view mirror, pride racing through him as he witnessed Max immediately tense in the King’s presence.

Max was intelligent of course, but David was glad to see Max demonstrating his sense of ‘street smarts’ by showing caution when dealing with the alternate ego that wore Ryan’s face.

Max met David’s glance,“What’s going on?”

David pulled out of the school’s parking lot, his knuckles white from the grip on the steering wheel.

Ryan glanced at him, noting the tense posture.

David noted Ryan noting him.

Ryan noted David noting him noting David.

Max hated this game.

“What’s the fuck is going on?” Max repeated, voice more forceful.

The two both snapped out of their match.

“Wanna grab lunch at the diner?” David seemingly snapped back to his usual cheerful self but Max knew something was still wrong.

“That’s fine.” Max straightened up and checked his phone absentmindedly, knowing he wasn’t going to get a straight answer until they arrived at the local diner.

Ryan sighed, and proceeded to look out the window. He didn’t bother to check his phone, he knew he had over a hundred texts from the crew. Almost all the texts begging him to stop.


“Oh fuck.” Max replied, eyes wide as he stared down at the table. He dipped his French fry in the small plastic cup filled with ketchup.

Ryan tried to asses Max’s reaction, but determined it useless. Max was a closed book when he wanted to be, even to Ryan, and only David could lift the cover and turn the page in these situations.

“You don’t have to, I don’t even want you too. It won’t help in the end run.” The last sentence was said more to Ryan with a hateful spit, who in turn scoffed.

“It’s his father, David. We take him too the scene and we take down the crew it’s that simple!”
“No it’s not!” David yelled, not caring about the attention he was drawing.

Max looked away, eyes staring at the orange and black decoration that covered the walls of the diner. He usually liked this time of year.

“Stray bullet? He dies. Deal goes wrong? He dies? You don’t think this through, like you’re doing now, he fucking dies!” David emphasized his words by pounding his fist on the table.

They were the only ones in the diner, the waitress and cook were too caught up in there conversation to notice the rowdy customers in the corner.

Mad Prince, the Sleepy Peak Slasher. Max’s shoulders tensed, but he kept his eyes averted.

The staff had carved out pumpkins and set them in the windows of the diner, Max thought it had its own sense of tacky charm in a good way.

“David, its the best bet. We do this and it’s nothing but peace in Los Santos. And Max’s mom can come back.” He let the words linger in the air.

“But maybe that’s what you’re afraid of.” Ryan’s voice was monotoned, and Max wished he had spoke the words with some sort of inflection.

A dark look overcame David’s face, a signal that this conversation had gone far enough.

“I’m calling Geoff.” Max piped up, tearing his eyes away from the diner interior to glance between the two that were caught up in a staring match.

Neither said a word, Max pushed away from
the table and stepped outside the diner. The bell that chimed above the door was the only sign that he had exited.

Max pulled out his phone, quickly responding to a text from Nikki and Neil who were excited for the upcoming camping trip before the fall season set in.

He didn’t notice the car pulling up.

He typed in Geoff’s number, listening to the ring as he focused his attention to crushing the bright orange leaf that skittered to a stop in front of him.

He couldn’t feel the eyes staring at him, the eyes waiting for confirmation.

“Did you say yes?” Geoff shouted so loud that Max had to pull the phone away from his ear.

“I missed you too.” Max sighed at the crude greeting, and turned to face the window of the diner looking past the carved pumpkins to where he could see David resisting the urge to choke Ryan.

“They’re fucking arguing right now like babies so I haven’t said anything yet. Can you come by? We are at the diner and I really wanna go home. They’re just being assholes.”

How could he have heard the approaching footsteps?

“Yeah, we’ll head that way. But get ready to have an ear full from Gavin. Someone brought another million dollar question.” He added false enthusiasm to the last sentence and Max could practically see him rolling his eyes.

Max groaned loudly, and Geoff laughed at his reaction. Max began to say his good bye when a gloved hand tapped his shoulder.

“Hold on- yeah?” There was no hesitation or pause. It happened all so fast.

The ski masked man grabbed him while the other man snatched his phone letting it clatter onto the side walk.

Max screamed and protested, kicking and fighting to gain his freedom. But they were already forcing him through the car door by the time Max got out of the initial shock.

They were arguing in the diner, and Geoff was too far away.

Max could faintly make out Geoff’s voice from his phone, he was probably screaming his head off after hearing the emotion.

Max fought to get out of the car, even getting as far as hanging out the door and screaming for help.

Max was forced into the middle of the seat, where they frantically pulled at his limbs to wrap the rope around his small wrists.

The door shut and they drove away.

David and Ryan didn’t even notice until Geoff bursted through the door of the diner, the rest of the FAHC tow.


They had to knock Max out after he resorted to biting, and his head ached as his eyes slowly opened. The room was dark except for a small blinking red light that was eye level in front of him. It stood a few feet away and took no time at all to determine it was a threat.

He shifted in his chair and the slightest movement made his head swim.

He could feel a heavy, tight weight around his chest. He knew it had to be ropes.

He and David would train consistently, how to make a weapon out of common items found in an interrogation room, how to escape from zip ties, and how to hide in a crowded room.

But Max’s mind was void of any information involving ropes, and it was almost laughable.

How could they have not covered that?

Max groaned as he tugged at the ropes, he wiggled but they didn’t budge.

He screamed. He rocked the chair. He kicked at the chair legs and then the air, hoping to connect with something that could help him get a feel of his surrounding.

The small red light blinked at him, and he returned the gesture. He was stuck and panicking in a completely dark room.

“David! Uncle Ryan! Uncle Geoff!” No response.

“Jack! Aunt Jack!” Where was he, where was he, where the hell was he.

“Fuck! Michael! Gavin! Jeremy!” He could feel the prickling of tears, his chest was beating so fast. His eyes were so heavy and tired but he forced them to stay open.

There was an odd crackling that filled the air, as if static breaking through a radio. Max stayed stock still waiting, the tears that ran down his face and the fast rise and fall of his chest were the only movement that could be found in the room

“Max? Scout? It’s Dad!”

“David? Where am I?” Max yelled, David voice was coming from next to the red light.

“Max, I want you to calm down,” It was suddenly Jack now, “Take a few deep breaths, baby.”

Max did as she said since no one ever disobeyed Jack.

“Where am I? Where are you guys?“ He said again once his heart had resumed a relatively calm pace.

“We don’t know yet, but we’re working on it, kid. We are at home, trying to get you back. Are you hurt?” Jeremy’s voice rang through.

“My head hurts a fuck ton, and I’m tired but I’m fine. The room’s completely dark.”

“You’re in a room, for sure?” Gavin piped up.

“Yes, I’m fucking sure Gavin! The room’s small, no echo.”

Michael was next to talk after a bout of silence.

“Max, you can’t see anything?”

“A red light, but it’s small and flashing. The rooms completely dark.”

“You said a small red light? Like one on a camcorder?” Ryan asked.

“Exactly.”

Max could hear whispering on the other end of the device, static crackling too loud for him to hear the exact details.

“I’m coming, Max. We are going to track the location and we are going to come and find you. I promise.” David’s voice sounded hoarse as though he’d been crying.

“Okay.” Because what else could he say?

His head pounded and his eyes grew heavier.

He heard more murmuring, on the other end and Max let the dull staticy voices lull him to sleep.

EVIDENCE AGAINST THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE: PART I

On May 5th, 1993, three eight-year-old boys from West Memphis, AR, disappeared while riding their bikes around their neighbourhood. Their naked, beaten, and hogtied bodies were discovered in a drainage ditch the next day, in a local patch of woods known as Robin Hood Hills. Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, and Steve Branch had been subjected to a vicious beating, and two of the boys had been mutilated.
Three local teenagers were charged with the brutal triple murder - Jessie Misskelley Jnr (17), Jason Baldwin (16) and Damien Echols (18). In two sensational trials the trio were found guilty of the murders, and Damien Echols - the presumed ringleader - was sentenced to death. Baldwin and Misskelley were sentenced to life terms plus 40 years.

In 2011 all three accused struck a plea deal with the State of Arkansas and were released from prison after serving 18 years.

Over the years, four documentaries have been made about the case, all of them arguing that the ‘West Memphis 3’ are innocent and a miscarriage of justice occurred when the three teenagers were convicted of the murders. These documentaries are most peoples introduction to the case, and in many respects they skew or omit details of the crime to make the West Memphis 3 appear innocent. While these documentaries make valid criticisms of the investigation and the justice system, they fail to deliver the full, truthful story of the tragic murders. Without further ado, here’s the evidence you never get to see that points to the guilt of the West Memphis 3:

(NOTE: this post doesnt contain any source details because the website that contains all the case documents is currently inaccessible. I promise I will add the links and source details when I can access the website callahan8k.com again)

1) NONE OF THE THREE ACCUSED HAD ALIBIS

Its a little known fact that Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin could not provide alibis for the night of the murders. The alibis presented in 'Paradise Lost’ and 'West of Memphis’ have been heavily distorted and/or lied about, so lets see what the three accused REALLY got up to on the night of May 5th:

~
JESSIE MISSKELLEY
~

In 'West of Memphis’, several shorts of footage from Jessie Misskelley’s trial shows a number of witnesses confirming that Misskelley attended a wrestling match with friends on the night of May 5th, 1993. An (undated) registry with Misskelley’s name on it and a photo of a wrestler is offered as proof that Misskelley was out of town on the night of the murders.

What 'West of Memphis’ conveniently leaves out is the footage of Jessie’s alibi witnesses being cross-examined by the prosecution. When questioned, every single one of them gave conflicting stories about who attended the match, who drove, where they went, and the places they visited. While all of them confirmed Jessie had tagged along on at least one trip to a wrestling match, none of them could say for sure if he was present on the night of May 5th, and receipts produced by the prosecution seemed to point to the fact that the wrestling trip with Jessie actually occurred several weeks before the murders.
In 'West of Memphis’ Misskelley’s attorney Dan Stidham complains that the jury “didn’t pay much attention” to Jessie’s alibi. Why is that? Because Jessie’s alibi witnesses gave such contradictory evidence that the jury didn’t believe them.

~
JASON BALDWIN
~

An interesting point to note is that none of the documentaries made about the case even bother to give Jason Baldwin an alibi for May 5th, 1993. Why? Because his alibi claims to police were so vague and unbelievable his defense lawyers didnt even try to submit them in court. This is an highly unusual step for the defense to take - if Baldwin had given them an alibi that seemed even half decent, his lawyers would have certainly submitted that evidence in trial.

The fact that Jason Baldwin’s lawyers didnt even bother to submit an alibi means only one thing; their client could not provide a single bit of proof he was elsewhere on the night of the murders.

Baldwin’s lawyers were aware that he had no proof of alibi, and they knew the prosecution would use this fact against him during cross examination. So they did the clever thing and did not bring up his alibi at all during the trial.

In the years since the murders, Jason Baldwin has never given an explanation for a lack of alibi nor has he attempted to provide one. His actions on the night of May 5th are therefore a complete mystery. Or are they?

~
DAMIEN ECHOLS
~

Damien Echols’ alibi claims have been heavily distorted over the years, most notably in 'West of Memphis’ where alibi witness Jennifer Bearden (who was 12 at the time of the murders) claims she was on the phone with Echols all night on May 5th, 1993.

The murders of the three children are widely believed to have occurred between 6:30pm and 8:30pm on May 5th, 1993. Jennifer Bearden’s claim she was on the phone with Echols from 5:30pm to 9:30pm is presented as concrete proof Echols did not commit the murders.

“….she [Bearden] had been on the phone with Damien and Jason during the afternoon after school until about 9:30pm”

- Jennifer Bearden in 'West of Memphis’

In actuality, Damien Echols originally claimed to have talked to FOUR different girls at home between the hours of 4:00pm and 10:30pm on the night of the murders. This immediately contradicts what Jennifer Bearden says in 'West of Memphis’ where she claims ONLY SHE talked to Echols on the phone during the hours in question.

Whats more, Bearden’s statement she reads on camera in 'West of Memphis’ (above) is actually misleading; in the statement she gave to police on the 10th of September, 1993, Bearden states she rang Damien Echols at Jason Baldwin’s house between 4:15pm and 5:30pm, talked to BOTH of them for twenty minutes, before Damien told her to ring him back at 8:00pm because he and Jason were “going somewhere”.

Here is the part of Bearden’s interview with Bryn Ridge where she confirms this, verbatim:

***

RIDGE: About what time was that call made to Jason’s?

BEARDEN: Between - it had to be somewhere in between 4:15 and 5, something like that….5 or 5:30

RIDGE: Who answered the phone at Jason’s?

BEARDEN: Jason

RIDGE: And did you talk to Damien?

BEARDEN: Yeah I talked to Jason for five minutes and the (inaudible) with Damien and he wasnt talking because they were playing video games with his little brother Matt

RIDGE: Okay, and after that conversation you had with him?

BEARDEN: He [Echols] said him and Jason were going to go somewhere, him and Jason were going somewhere, and that he, um, wanted me to call him later at his house around 8 and I said okay

RIDGE: Okay, did he say where he was going to go?

BEARDEN: No

***

The above statement is Jennifer’s own words, transcribed by police four months after the murders. They directly contradict what she says in 'West of Memphis’, where she claims to have talked to Damien UNINTERRUPTED between the hours of 4:15 and 9:30.

Bearden’s interview with Bryn Ridge clearly demonstrates she rang Echols between 4:15-5:30 pm, talked with Echols and Baldwin for twenty minutes, before Echols told her to ring him back at 8:00pm. Furthermore, Bearden’s statement implies Echols was out WITH Jason Baldwin between the time of her first phone call at 4:15pm and the time she rang him back at 8:00pm.

Further down in her police statement, Bearden says she attempted to ring Echols again at 8pm, like he requested, BUT WAS TOLD HE WASNT HOME. Here is the excerpt from that statement, verbatim:

***

RIDGE: Okay, and when you called back about 8?

BEARDEN: His grandmother said he wasn’t there, and that I was supposed to call back around 9….and I called back around 9:20, 9:30 and I talk to him [Echols] for a little bit, but then I had to get off the phone because I wasn’t supposed to be on the phone after 9:30

***

Bearden told police in her statement that she rang Damien’s house at 8pm like he asked, but his grandmother (Francis Gosa) told her he wasn’t there. This is a HUGE piece of evidence against Echols. Not only does it prove Echols lied when he told police he was at home all night, but it places him outside his home WITH Jason Baldwin during the crucial hours the murders are believed to have been committed. The murders are thought to have occurred between 6:30pm and 8:30pm, remember? Jennifer Bearden’s statement only covers the time between 4:15pm to 5:30pm and after 9:20pm. She tried to reach Echols’ at 8:00pm, but couldn’t get a hold of him.

Contrary to what is presented in 'West of Memphis’, Damien’s Echols’ whereabouts are unaccounted for between the hours of 5:30pm and 9:20pm. Again, the murders are thought to have happened between 6:30pm and 8:30pm. Jennifer Bearden’s police statement does not support Echols’ claim he was at home all night talking on the phone. His other alibi witnesses - Holly George, Heather Cliett, and Domini Teer - further damage his alibi claims with their own police statements:

1) Holly George
Holly George told police she spoke with Damien Echols around 3:30pm on May 5th, 1993. She only called Echols once that day. Holly also claimed she and Echols engaged in a three-way phone call with Jennifer Bearden, and she only talked to Echols for five minutes.

There are several contradictory details in Holly George’s statement - she claimed to have talked to Damien AND Jennifer via three-way calling, yet Jennifer doesn’t mention a three-way call in her interview. Holly also states she rang Damien around 3:30pm and their conversation didn’t last past 4:00pm, which conflicts with Damien’s assertion he spoke with her much later in the evening.

George also mentions in her statement that she talked to Jennifer Bearden after the murders, who told her that she (Bearden) had spoken with Echols after George rang him, and tried to reach him later that evening but he wasn’t home. Jennifer Bearden confirms this in her own statement (above)

2) Heather Cliett
Heather Cliett is another girl whom Damien Echols claims to have spoken to on the phone on the day of the murders. In statements given to police on June 7th and 8th - immediately after Damien was arrested - Cliett stated that her, Holly George, and Jennifer Bearden had talked on the phone via three-way calling on the night of May 5th. She said Damien only joined the conversation around 10:00pm.

As you can see, Heather Cliett’s version of events are dramatically different from Holly George’s statement and Jennifer Bearden’s statement:

- Holly George claimed she had a three-way phone call only with Damien and Jennifer; she did not say Heather was also present during the three-way conversation.

- Jennifer Bearden does not mention a three-way call at all in her statement, despite two different people claiming she participated in one.

Since all three alibi witnesses - Bearden, George, and Cliett - gave conflicting statements about a three-way call between them and Damien, its impossible to know whether the call actually happened, and who was present if it DID happen. The important thing to note is that Heather Cliett states she talked to Echols AFTER 10:00pm, and did not talk to him before. Cliett’s statement doesn’t support Echols’ assertion he was at home until after 10:00pm.

3) Domini Teer
Domini Teer told prosecutors on the stand she spent the afternoon of May 5th with Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. Domini was Echols’ pregnant girlfriend at the time.

She told prosecutor John Fogleman that Damien came to her house around 1:00pm on the day of the murders, and the two of them waited for Jason to come home from school, which he did around 3:25pm. Teer then states her, Damien, Jason, and a friend called Ken walked over to Hubert Bartoush’s (Jason’s uncle) house to watch Jason mow the lawns.

Teer tells Fogleman the time they arrived at Jason’s uncles house was around 4:00pm. Here is an excerpt from her testimony, verbatim:

***

FOGLEMAN: Okay. About what time did ya’ll get to his uncles?

TEER: Um….4 o'clock, something like that

FOGLEMAN: 4 or 4:15, something like that?

TEER: yeah, it was around there.

***

Domini told Fogleman after she, Damien, and Ken arrived at Jason’s uncles house at around 4:00pm, the three of them watched Jason mow the lawn.

Domini Teer’s testimony on the stand conflicts with Jennifer Bearden’s statements to police - remember, Jennifer told police she spoke to Damien AND Jason on the phone between 4:15pm and 5:30pm that day. Domini, however, told a prosecutor that she, Damien, Jason, and another friend went to an uncles house to mow the lawn, and they arrived there around 4:00pm- 4:15pm.

Damien cant of been on the phone with Bearden and travelling to Jason’s uncles house with Domini at the same time. One of the girls is either lying or mistaken about the times they were in contact with Damien.

Domini Teer also stated in court that after she and Echols watched Jason mow the lawns, she and Damien was picked up by his mother around 5:00pm. Damien’s mother dropped her home around 5:30pm, and the two didn’t speak again that night until 10:00pm when Damien rang her on the phone.

Domini Teer’s testimony only covers Echols’ whereabouts for the hours between 1:00pm and 5:30pm, and after 10:00pm on the night of May 5th. Her testimony clashes with the statement of Heather Cliett who also claimed to have talked to Echols around 10:00pm.

CONCLUSION

The testimony of Damien Echols’ alibi witnesses makes for confusing reading, as all four of them contradict his claim he was home all night, and with none of the statements actually providing him with an alibi: when compared together, not a single one of Damien’s four witnesses can vouch for his whereabouts for the hours between 5:30pm and 9:20pm on the day of the murder.

A lack of alibi in itself is not irrefutable proof of guilt. But when you consider the fact NONE of the three accused had a solid alibi, as well as the evidence that suggest at least two of the accused- Echols and Baldwin - were together walking around during the hours in question, it begs the question: where exactly were they? What were they doing? Why couldnt a single one of their witnesses verify their claims?

| AP Rhetorical Devices (pt. ii) |

| Day 2 - 5.9.2017 |

Here is part two! Keep on studying! I’ll leave some notes on these devices afterwards. :)

16. Paradox: statement that appears contradictory yet expresses a truth when viewed from another angle.
“Less is more.”

17. Polysyndeton: sentence that uses “and” or other conjunction (with no commas) to separate items in a series.
X and Y and Z

18. Pun: play on words that utilizes a word’s multiple meanings.
To write with a broken pencil is pointless.

19. Personification: characterizing objects or abstract concepts to have human-like qualities.
The
tree danced along with the playful wind.

20. Red Herring: when an author raises an irrelevant issue to draw attention away from the real issue. Main purpose is to distract.
- “What do you have to say about the lack of women in Congress?”
- “Look, I know you’re mad at me, but the polls show I won the election fair and square.”

21. Satire: used to arouse laughter at targets such as people or groups to expose human folly.
Swift’s proposal to eat the Irish babies to help the country of poverty and over population…he uses satire (eat the babies) to make his point that it is more important to educate the poor and treat them like humans.

22. Synecdoche: figure of speech in which a part of something is used to represent the whole.
“I have four mouths to feed at home!” (translation: I have four family members to feed at home)

23. Tu Quo Que (and you?): avoid the real argument by making similar charges against the opponent. Similar to: Ad Hominem, and Red Herring.
Mom: Smoking is bad for you and expensive! I hope to never see you do it.
Teen: But you did it when you were my age! So I can do it too!

24. False Authority: An “authority” (or professional) in one field that may know nothing of another field. Being knowledgeable on one area doesn’t make you smart in the other. Mainly used in advertising.
Kim Kardashian (famous figure/model) talking about rocket science to promote funding for space exploration. (”She’s famous, so she must know what she’s talking about!”)

25. Bandwagon Appeal: trying to get everyone on board with an idea or project.
“All the cool kids are watching the show, so should you!”

26. Slippery Slope: suggesting that one step with inevitably lead to more, negative steps.
If I fail this test, then that means I’ll never be able to go to college, and if I can’t get into college, I’ll end up with no job, and with no job, I’ll end up homeless and hungry for the rest of my life!”

27. Poisoning the Well: Committing an attack against the opponent before the opponent has had a change to introduce their argument/selves.
“Listen, that guy who’s going to present for us, don’t listen to him. He’s a total jerk outside of work and his apartment is a mess! He can’t be our next CEO.”

28. Opposing a Straw Man: writer picks only the opposition’s weakest or most significant point to refute. Used to oppose an oversimplified opposition to prove their point.
Steps…:Ignore real argument, create a pretend argument, defeat pretend argument, claim victory over real argument, do the victory dance,

29. Equivocation: when writer makes use of a word’s multiple meanings and changes the meanings in the middle of an argument without telling the audience about the shift. Uses ambiguous such as “right”, “justice”, or “experience”. Often appear valid, but they are not.
All trees have
barks, every dog barks, therefore, every dog is a tree.

30. Post Hoc: (after this, therefore also this) arguments that assume a faulty casual relationship. One event following another in time does not mean that first event caused the later event.
“I got a fever this morning, and last night I ate a hamburger, so the hamburger must have made me sick.”


These rhetorical devices will help you out the most in your analysis essay (question 2). The main thing you want to do when writing your essay, is to annotate any of these rhetorical devices in the passage given, and explain how the author of the passage used those rhetorical devices to either prove or make a point. You do not necessarily have to make an argument in this essay. So as a run down:
1.)
Start with annotating.
2.) Label the rhetorical device the author uses.
3.) Briefly explain the rhetorical device used (maybe even reference the line it’s in).
4.) Go into DETAIL about how the author uses said device to either prove, disapprove, or make a point .

Happy Studying~!

Okay, but guys I can’t express to you all enough how excited I am to finally see Donato in action - at his creepiest in the series. And Ishida’s characterization of Donato in this scene so far has been fantastic, because he manages to make Donato frighten us even after all the recent bloodshed in the series while still reminding the reader of his more sensitive/personal side.

Just in that phrase “Taste how it feels. How I feel.” In that short quip, Donato manages to fit in a megalomaniac comparison of himself to God and his personal, vulnerable emotions about Amon. 

Because the metaphor of Urie, crucified, watching from above certainly implies a God-like presence. (Without the power to intervene, it sounds more deist than Catholic, tbh. but I’ll let Donato pass on this one.) And in a way, he himself has watched over others in his priestly role. By running the orphanage, he always had that burden of caring for children in the name of God. However, the scene also indirectly references Donato’s seeming omniscience when it comes to the ghoul world, as Donato knew a notable amount of information about the events outside Cochlea despite having been imprisoned for years. Hinami’s intelligence became obsolete by the time of the second Cochlea raid. Donato’s, though, was still relied upon despite remaining in Cochlea for maybe a decade or longer. So, Donato himself has embodied throughout the series the Godly traits his metaphor in this scene emphasizes.

However, at the same time, that knowledge he accumulated couldn’t do anything to save Amon. He had to sit there and hear about his son’s capture, ghoulification, and possible death without the ability to protect or shelter him. It most likely felt like the equivalent to what he’s doing to Urie now: torturing the entrapped person’s loved one - one he’s been entrusted to take care of, as Uncle Higemaru’s monologue just highlighted - right in front of his eyes while he’s immobilized. And while Donato’s thirst for revenge is pretty prominent here, you can see that frustration with his own limitations, too. 

And that’s why I love those two sentences. Because they seem to present the reader with two seemingly contradictory meanings. It confuses you on whether to think of Donato as an omnipotent God or as a fallible mortal. And I think that’s what makes him one of the most terrifying types of villains.